Get tracking links

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing the return format, the condition that sharing_link only appears for type=destination points, and possible 409 error codes. It does not contradict the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, and the disclosed behaviors are relevant for handling responses and errors.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the key purpose, and effectively includes essential details: safe-to-share, return structure, conditional field, and error codes. Every piece of information adds value without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the return shape, the conditional availability of sharing_link, and error codes. It could be more complete by explicitly stating when to use it, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers the only parameter (claim_id) with a clear description (source and length). The tool description adds no additional parameter detail, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: obtaining public courier tracking links safe to share, and it specifies the return structure (route_points with sharing_link). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_claim or get_confirmation_code, though the 'public tracking links' and return format make the purpose clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context by stating the links are 'safe to share with the recipient', suggesting this tool is for sharing tracking info with customers. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, such as get_claim, which might also contain tracking information.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.